Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] ACPI / scan: Create platform device for fwnodes with multiple i2c devices

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 07-08-18 13:49, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-08-07 at 13:29 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 07-08-18 13:19, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2018-08-07 at 10:05 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * These devices have multiple I2cSerialBus resources and an
> > > > i2c-client
> > > > +	 * must be instantiated for each, each with its own
> > > > i2c_device_id.
> > > > +	 * Normally we only instantiate an i2c-client for the first
> > > > resource,
> > > > +	 * using the ACPI HID as id. These special cases are handled by
> > > > the
> > > > +	 * drivers/platform/x86/i2c-multi-instantiate.c driver, which
> > > > knows
> > > > +	 * which i2c_device_id to use for each resource.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	static const struct acpi_device_id i2c_multi_instantiate_ids[] =
> > > > {
> > > > +		{"BSG1160", 0},
> > > > +		{"", 0},
> > > > +	};
> > >
> > > Style nits:
> > > - can we move it outside of function?
> >
> > Sure, but there are 2 existing users of an array of acpi_device_id-s
> > combined with an acpi_match_device_ids() call and both have the array
> > inside the function, so for consistency it seems better to keep it
> > where it is.
>
> Hmm... OK.
>
> > > - is this existing style in the file and / or files in this folder
> > > for
> > > IDs? (I mean unnecessary 0:s and empty string?
> >
> > It seems that all variants one can come up with are already used
> > inside
> > this single file.
>
> Ah, that's sad.
>
> > I agree that less is more, so I will change this to:
> >
> >           static const struct acpi_device_id
> > i2c_multi_instantiate_ids[] = {
>
> >                   {"BSG1160", },
> >                   {}
> >           };
>
> In case if it mimics already existing style, looks quite good to me
> (otherwise perhaps comma inside {} can also be removed).
>
> > For v4.
>
> Does it make sense to test v3 on your opinion? Or better to wait for v4?

Sorry for being a bit slow to answer, I'm about to send out v4, so probably
best to wait for that now. Note the 2 will be functionally identical,
I mainly fixed / clarified commit messages and the MAINTAINERS entry +
the small style fixed discussed above.

Regards,

Hans